Talk:My Favorite Wife

Unsub

I've removed the unsubstantiated rumour about a homosexual relationship between Grant and Scott. IMO, it doesn't belong here; there is enough discussion (way too much for my taste) about this in the article about Grant. I did put in one oblique reference by noting that they were housemates. Clarityfiend 05:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have restored this, in what I consider an "appropriate" and non-exploitive fashion, because it's worth noting for this particular film. The issue of whether Grant and/or Scott were bisexual and had a relationship doesn't want to die. Nor should it, as long as it's treated with respect for the people involved.

Because I respect the work of the person who creates an article, if you wish to remove my addition, I will not reinstate it. But I don't think you should remove an appropriate addition that's presented in a neutral manner. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I took out:

"The casting of Grant and Scott as the men vying for Dunne's affection is amusing (and perhaps ironic) as both men (who were roommates for some years) had a reputation as wild-partying womanizers, and as (perhaps) having had an extended sexual relationiship."

because to me, it is way too WP:POV. Who finds it amusing and/or ironic? You need to back this up with a reference. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone would find it amusing/ironic. For the same reason that anyone would find the sky blue, or water wet. Some things are so obvious that there's no need to have "experts" confirming them. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You're trying to inject your own personal opinion. The use of the word "perhaps" twice is a clear sign that this is not as universal and obvious as you claim. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation removed

The Synopsis section was copyright violation of TCM's website. I have replaced it with what existed before the copyvio material was inserted. Someone may wish to expand it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

External links

I removed "AllMovie" and "TCM Movie Database" from the "External links" section. This section inherently grows to become a link farm with sites that inundate Wikipedia providing no actual unique resource (#1) and becomes just promotion (#4) for "fansites". If one of these links are preferable, as providing more unique information or choice, then there needs to be a discussion for replacement. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Have you not noticed that TCM, and to a lesser extent AllMovie, is a standard external link on the majority of films? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: Hello, and in case you didn't know, there is no "standard" on links to just keep piling them on. It is simple to create a template, not unlike Curlie and insert them in the external links. However, even the use of any considered "standard" external links does not by-pass the requirements that they conform to broad community established policies and guidelines. The fact that many articles have these considered "standard" links does not justify the use if they do not supply a unique resource (see above) to justify inclusion but is simply creating a list that violates the guidelines and policy. The inundation of the sites on Wikipedia because they simply have not been "challenged" does not imply that they are acceptable to use on all articles when a long list of "External links" is the result.

Also, it should be remembered that there should be "justifiable reasoning" because "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.". This would actually mean that the presented reasoning in the edit summary "More or less de facto standard; if you don't like it, take it up at the film wikiproject." is flawed. It has been well established that a WikiProject can operate within the boundaries of the more broad community consensus but cannot arbitrarily ignore these established community standards. I would hope that you have just misinterpreted the intent of the project because I have not seen a project that advocates dismissing or side-stepping consensus or policies and guidelines. With that reasoning I am perplexed that you reverted the whole edit to include "to a lesser extent AllMovie" without bothering to even consider, or to offer evidence, that either of the two in fact do offer something "unique" or provides "further research", but instead, in effect, initiated a BRD that should not ever ignore policies or guideline reasoning absent of clear article improvement. I looked over Wikipedia:WikiProject Film and absent is any mention of maintenance because it is likely the project intends to follow policies and guidelines.

With this in mind I will revisit this and if you continue to feel your opinion is correct, or choose not to continue the discussion, we can explore for clarification from the project and the community. The outcome will likely be that the project does not intent to usurp any authority over policies, guidelines, and broad community consensus, and that too many "external links" are not needed on articles just to add them because it is conceived to be a "standard". Otr500 (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There is already a solid community consensus that IMDb and TCM are appropriate external links. Of the top ten films in the AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies list (all I bothered to check), all have both links, with the sole exception of The Godfather, which doesn't have TCM for some odd reason. Somewhere around a half also have AllMovie. So your unilateral decision to overturn that consensus seems rather misguided. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not asserting that either is not appropriate to use as I didn't look at it from that point or remove them "because" of that reasoning. In fact, I find that there can be information not readily available elsewhere (not just trivia), that if I can corroborate anywhere else, I would consider important to include as long as it isn't user supplied information. One or two "External links" are sufficient on an article. I generally don't even think twice with three when there is an "official" link. If you were to look I also not generally become concerned when there is four or less but this section, that I work in a lot, has become a rampant dumping ground. Most of the time I just leave a notice on the talk page and pretty much 100% of the time it is either ignored or the article is not watched by someone. I do not like career tags (remove many) so unless I am in the middle of something I prefer this direction over tagging and I revisit my history as a check up. Of the many times I have left comments I generally don't get a reply. I then may leave an extra comment that I would prefer someone involved in the article to look at this so I don't have to arbitrarily remove some. If no one seems concerned I just remove some.

If you re-read my comments it is centered on two facts 1)- The external links section is longer than necessary, and I have noticed there is a move in the direction of continually adding to this section. and 2)- The links I removed do not add any value to the article or provide anything "extra" that would give an exception to having either included. Because they have been "dumped" into many articles is not a clear consensus to keep doing this. Just because a link is used somewhere else also isn't valid reasoning to continue to allow it "just for the fun of it" or to advertise the sites on Wikipedia when it clearly is against policies and guidelines. I have actually been considered to be "misguided" before when I perform maintenance but for the most part, as seems apparent now, my main question of "What value do the links add to this article, to justify inclusion?", seems not to be answered to any satisfaction.

I have inquired at the project and at least one other editor agrees with my assessment. If you care to look at the links again, from a view other than "but we use them everywhere", and see if there "might be" something I missed (and at least one other editor so far) that could be considered important to justify inclusion, that would be fantastic. Otherwise I feel my "misguided" opinion might not be so off-base and causes me some wonder the exact reason you are defending dumping these sites on Wikipedia just to have them listed. I am perplexed at that rationale, "we use them on many articles". If "any" "External link" does not provide something "extra", that cannot be incorporated into an article for copyvio reasons or other allowed exceptions, then that link does not need to be "dumped" into an article yet the section inherently grow, and grows, and grows on many articles. If this is happening (I prefer not to get directed into some crusade on particular sites) then maybe you can look at this from my point of view and look more closely at some of these links yourself as possibly needing to be removed. I would be very happy to have any help in improving Wikipedia.

The bottom line is that these two links can be (and were) removed without any detriment to the article, no loss of important information (that I saw), directs the articles to be more in line with policies and guidelines, and that is my apparently perceived "misguided" goal. I suppose it would be too bold to inquire, if you are open to considering my rationale and possibly agreeing, to consider self-reverting? Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Upon reflection I removed TCM and AllMovie from the "External links" section again. An initial removal was reverted by Clarityfiend, apparently as a WP:BRD, with the edit summary "More or less de facto standard; if you don't like it, take it up at the film wikiproject.". A discussion there resulted in an agreement (from Erik) to the removal which follows dispute resolution. Any restoring of the links should only follow a discussion here and consensus. The "onus" would fall on any seeking such inclusion or it might be considered edit warring.

The appropriateness of using the sites is not the issue but the inappropriate inundation on articles bloating the section (See: ELPOINTS#3) when the use clearly does not add anything to the article. The idea that it is alright for the blanket use of sites in all the external links sections of articles, because of some "defacto standard", is flawed and against ELNO#1. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)